Seoul High Court 2015Nu33914 (2015.03)

The instant money cannot be deemed to have been substantially reverted to the Deceased.

In full view of the fact that the instant SPC was established and operated for the so-called convenience and that it cannot be deemed that there was any other purpose of tax avoidance, etc., it cannot be deemed that the instant money was directly reverted to the Deceased, rather than the instant SPC, and it cannot be included in the Plaintiffs’ inherited property value.

Article 15 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Du53374 Demanding the revocation of inheritance tax disposition

1. AA;

2. BB

Seoul 00-Gu 000-ro 00

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 000

00. Head of tax office

Litigation performers 000

Law Firm (LLC) 000

Attorney 000

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu33914 Decided September 3, 2015

February 18, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court determined that: (a) the CCC established the FFFFFFF in the DDR on January 10, 1985; (b) on April 17, 1986, GGGGGGGG (hereinafter referred to as the “instant SPC”); (c) the CCC died on June 6, 2007; and (b) the spouse of the Plaintiff BBB and CCC, the Plaintiff, and the former CCC, were succeeded to its property; and (c) the Defendant, on the grounds that the CCC could not be deemed to have actually reverted to the inherited property of this case, on the following grounds that it could not be deemed that the instant property could not be included in the inherited property of this case; and (c) the Plaintiffs could not be deemed to have been subject to any tax evasion, including the amount of money withdrawn from the deposit account in the name of the instant PC; and (d) the instant property could not be deemed to have been subject to any tax avoidance and additional tax.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to substance over form principle, violation of

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and determined that: (a) the share ownership relationship of the instant SPC was not clearly revealed at the time of the commencement of the inheritance; (b) there was no balance remaining in the deposit account in the name of the instant SPC at the time of the death of CCC; and (c) even if the amount equivalent to the instant money was transferred to 00 bank accounts or used for the purchase of securities, there is no ground to deem that there existed no remaining assets of the instant SPC at the time of the commencement of the inheritance; and (b) its value cannot be assessed.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of inherited property and the valuation of value, or any other relevant legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.